ad_get_group

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The [READ] tag usefully declares the operation as read-only, and the description states that it returns group details and a member count; however, it does not mention permissions, authentication needs, or any operational constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with category and read tags followed by the core action. It contains no filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema exists, so return-value details are less critical, but the required identity parameter remains completely undefined and there are no annotations. For a group lookup tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin to let an agent invoke it confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it does not explain the required identity parameter or correlation_id. The word 'grupo' only weakly implies that identity refers to a group, and there is no guidance on accepted identity formats such as DN, SAM account name, or GUID.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource: consultar detalhes e contagem de membros de grupo. It clearly signals a read-oriented group lookup, which distinguishes it from list/create/update/delete group siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from ad_list_group_members or ad_list_groups.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The [READ] tag and group-detail wording imply the general context, but the agent is left to infer when this is preferable to ad_list_groups, ad_list_group_members, or ad_get_user_groups.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.